## Bava Kamma Daf 51a

###### Bava Kamma 51a:1
[Bava Kamma 51a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:1)

לָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ הַבְלָא. אִי הָכִי, הוּזַּק בּוֹ חַיָּיב? הָא לֵית בֵּיהּ הַבְלָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין הֶבֶל לְמִיתָה, וְיֵשׁ הֶבֶל לִנְזָקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman responds: **No,** he is exempt here **because there are not** sufficient **fumes** to cause death, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. Nevertheless, the impact from hitting the ground is sufficient to cause death, and therefore an ox that fell into a water channel is suspected of being a *tereifa*. Rava again challenges him: **If so,** then how is the statement: If the animal **was injured by it,** he is **liable,** to be explained? **There are not** sufficient **fumes?** Rav Naḥman **said to him: There are not** sufficient **fumes to** cause **death, but there are** sufficient **fumes to** cause **injury.**


###### Bava Kamma 51a:2
[Bava Kamma 51a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:2)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: בֵּית הַסְּקִילָה הָיָה גָּבוֹהַּ שְׁתֵּי קוֹמוֹת. וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: וְקוֹמָה שֶׁלּוֹ – הֲרֵי כָּאן שָׁלֹשׁ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ יֵשׁ חֲבָטָה בְּפָחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה, לְמָה לִי כּוּלֵּי הַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **raised an objection to** the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a mishna (*Sanhedrin* 45a): **The structure** from which **the** punishment of **stoning** was implemented **was a height of two** people, **and it is taught in that regard** in a *baraita*: When the two-person height of the structure is combined with **his height,** i.e., the height of the one being stoned, **there is** a total height equal to that of **three** people. Rava explains his objection: **And if it enters your mind** that **there is an impact** capable of causing death **in** a pit **less than ten** handbreadths deep, **why do I** need **all of this** height?


###### Bava Kamma 51a:3
[Bava Kamma 51a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:3)

וּלְטַעְמָיךְ – נַעֲבֵיד עֲשָׂרָה! אֶלָּא כְּרַב נַחְמָן – דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״ – בְּרוֹר לוֹ מִיתָה יָפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman answered him: **And according to your reasoning, let us make** the structure a minimal **ten** handbreadths. Why must it have a height of two people? **Rather,** no proof can be brought from here, since the reason is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says** that the **verse states: “And you shall love your fellow as yourself”** (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, **select a good,** i.e., a compassionate, **death for him.** Therefore, the structure used for stoning is constructed sufficiently high that he dies quickly, without any unnecessary suffering.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:4
[Bava Kamma 51a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:4)

אִי הָכִי, נַגְבַּהּ טְפֵי! מִשּׁוּם דְּמִינַּוַּול.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, let us raise** the structure even **more,** so that his death will be even less painful. The Gemara answers: This is not done, **because** if he fell from a greater height, his organs would be crushed and he would become completely **disfigured,** which is certainly not a way one would prefer to die.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:5
[Bava Kamma 51a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:5)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: ״כִּי יִפֹּל הַנֹּפֵל מִמֶּנּוּ״; ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ – וְלֹא בְּתוֹכוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava again **raised an objection to** the opinion of Rav Naḥman: The Torah requires constructing a parapet on the roof of one’s house to prevent anyone from falling to his death, as the verse states (Deuteronomy 22:8): “You shall not bring blood upon your house, **if any man falls from it.”** The term **“from it”** teaches that liability exists only for falling from the roof of the house, **but not onto** the roof of a house.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:6
[Bava Kamma 51a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:6)

כֵּיצַד? הָיְתָה רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים גָּבוֹהַּ מִמֶּנּוּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, וְנָפַל מִתּוֹכָהּ לְתוֹכוֹ – פָּטוּר. עֲמוּקָּה מִמֶּנּוּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, וְנָפַל מִתּוֹכוֹ לְתוֹכָהּ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How** is this **so?** If an area in the **public domain was ten handbreadths higher than** a private house and the owner did not construct a fence between his house and the public domain, **and** someone **fell from inside** the public domain **onto** the house, the owner of the house is **exempt.** By contrast, if the public domain was **ten handbreadths lower than** the house, and the owner did not construct a fence on his roof, **and** someone **fell from** the roof of the house **into** the public domain, he is **liable.**


###### Bava Kamma 51a:7
[Bava Kamma 51a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:7)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ יֵשׁ חֲבָטָה בְּפָחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה, לְמָה לִי עֲשָׂרָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁאנֵי בַּיִת, דְּכׇל פָּחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה – לָאו בַּיִת הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it enters your mind** that **there is** a sufficiently strong **impact** to cause death even at a height **of less than ten** handbreadths, **why do I** need the roof to be **ten** handbreadths high for there to be a requirement to construct a parapet? Rav Naḥman **said to him:** The *halakha* of the parapet for the roof of **a house is different, since any** structure **less than ten** handbreadths **is not** classified as **a house,** and only a house requires a parapet.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:8
[Bava Kamma 51a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:8)

אִי הָכִי, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי דְּהָוֵי מֵאַבָּרַאי עֲשָׂרָה, דַּל מִינֵּיהּ תִּקְרָה וּמַעֲזִיבָה – מִגַּוַּאי לָא הָוֵי עֲשָׂרָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּגוֹן דְּחַק מִגַּוַּאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava objects: **If that is so,** i.e., if the requirement to build a parapet is limited to a house that is ten handbreadths high, then **also now, where** the house **is ten** handbreadths higher than the public domain when measured **from the outside, remove** the height of **the ceiling and the plaster,** which is an additional layer on top of the ceiling. When measured **from the inside** in this manner, its height **is not ten.** According to you, then, it is not classified as a house. Rav Naḥman **said to him:** It is a case **where he hollowed out** an extra space **inside** in the floor of the house so that its height would be ten handbreadths.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:9
[Bava Kamma 51a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:9)

אִי הָכִי, כִּי לָא הָוֵי נָמֵי מֵאַבָּרַאי עֲשָׂרָה – מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּהָוֵי מִגַּוַּאי עֲשָׂרָה כְּגוֹן דְּחַק בַּהּ טְפֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava challenges him: **If so,** in a situation **where** the house **is not ten** handbreadths **from the outside as well, you** can **find** a scenario **where it is ten** handbreadths **from the inside, such as where he hollowed out extra** space **in** the floor, thereby transforming it into a house with the required height. Why, then, would a person be exempt in this case?


###### Bava Kamma 51a:10
[Bava Kamma 51a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:10)

אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַב נַחְמָן, סָבַר: מִכְּרֵיסָא דְתוֹרָא לְאַרְעָא כַּמָּה הָוֵי – אַרְבְּעָה; אֲרִיתָּא דְּדַלָּאֵי כַּמָּה הָוֵי – שִׁיתָּא; הָא עַשְׂרָה. אִישְׁתְּכַח דְּכִי קָא מִחֲבַט – מֵעֲשָׂרָה הוּא דְּקָא מִחֲבַט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather,** the previous explanation must be entirely rejected, and **this is the reasoning of Rav Naḥman** when he ruled that one must suspect that the ox’s organs were crushed upon falling into the water channel. He **maintains** the following argument: **How** far **is** the distance **from the stomach of the ox to the ground?** It is **four** handbreadths. **How** deep **is the water channel?** It is **six** handbreadths. **This** totals **ten** handbreadths. Therefore, it **transpires that when** the ox **hits** the ground, **it is from** a height of **ten** handbreadths **that it hits** the ground, since it landed on its stomach and not on its feet.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:11
[Bava Kamma 51a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:11)

אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתִין דְּקָתָנֵי: מָה בּוֹר שֶׁהוּא כְּדֵי לְהָמִית – עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, אַף כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית – עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים; בְּשִׁיתָּא נָמֵי סַגְיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** with regard to **the mishna, which teaches: Just as a pit that has sufficient** depth **to cause death** when falling into it is at least **ten handbreadths** deep, **so too, any** other excavations **that have sufficient** depth **to cause death** may be no less than **ten handbreadths** deep, why not say that a pit **with six** handbreadths would **also be sufficient?**


###### Bava Kamma 51a:12
[Bava Kamma 51a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:12)

אָמְרִי: מַתְנִיתִין – דְּאִיגַּנְדַּר לְבוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in reply: **The mishna** is referring to a case **where** the animal **rolled into the pit,** in which case the pit would be required to have a depth of ten handbreadths. By contrast, if it fell while walking, the extra height from the ground to its stomach is included in calculating the ten handbreadths.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:13
[Bava Kamma 51a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** בּוֹר שֶׁל שְׁנֵי שׁוּתָּפִין; עָבַר עָלָיו הָרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא כִּסָּהוּ, וְהַשֵּׁנִי וְלֹא כִּסָּהוּ – הַשֵּׁנִי חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **a pit belonging to two partners** was uncovered and **the first** partner **passed by it and did not cover it, and** then **the second** passed by it **and did not cover it, the second** is **liable** for any damage caused by means of the pit.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:14
[Bava Kamma 51a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:14)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמְרִי: בּוֹר שֶׁל שְׁנֵי שׁוּתָּפִין הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? הָנִיחָא אִי סְבִירָא לַן כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ – חַיָּיב; מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּחָצֵר שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם וּבוֹר שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם, וְהִפְקִירוּ רְשׁוּתָן וְלֹא הִפְקִירוּ בּוֹרָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Sages **say: How can you find** such a case of **a pit belonging to two partners? This works out well if we hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who says** that one who digs **a pit** on his own property and then declares the property, but not the pit, ownerless, is **liable** for damage. According to him, **you find** such a case **where the courtyard belongs to both of them and the pit belongs to both of them, and they renounced ownership of their property but did not renounce ownership of their pit.** In that case, both are responsible for any damage caused.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:15
[Bava Kamma 51a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:15)

אֶלָּא אִי סְבִירָא לַן בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ פָּטוּר; הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּחַיָּיב עֲלֵיהּ – בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וּבִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים בּוֹר שֶׁל שְׁנֵי שׁוּתָּפִין הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if we hold** that one who digs **a pit on his** own **property** and then declares the property, but not the pit, ownerless, is **exempt** from liability for damage caused, **how can you find** a case of a pit **for which** a person is **liable?** It can only be a case where it is located **in the public domain, and how can you find** a case of a **pit belonging to two partners in the public domain?**


###### Bava Kamma 51a:16
[Bava Kamma 51a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:16)

אִי דְּשַׁוּוֹ שָׁלִיחַ תַּרְוַיְיהוּ, וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: ״זִיל כְּרִי לַן״, וַאֲזַל כְּרָה לְהוּ – אֵין שָׁלִיחַ לִדְבַר עֲבֵירָה! וְאִי דִּכְרָה הַאי חַמְשָׁה וְהַאי חַמְשָׁה – נִסְתַּלְּקוּ לְהוּ מַעֲשֵׂה רִאשׁוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If they both** jointly **appointed an agent and said to him: Go dig** a pit **for us, and he went** and **dug** a pit **for** both of **them,** then neither is liable. This is because **there is no agency for transgression,** and the digger is solely responsible. **And if this** partner **dug** a pit **five** handbreadths deep **and this** partner dug **five** further handbreadths deep, **the** significance of the initial **act of** digging performed by **the first** partner **has been removed.** Now all responsibility rests with the second partner, who deepened the pit to ten handbreadths, which is the minimum depth for which one is liable for an animal’s death. Therefore, this is also not treated as a jointly owned pit.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:17
[Bava Kamma 51a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:17)

הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי – וְלִנְזָקִין, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי – וּלְמִיתָה, וּלְרַבָּנַן – בֵּין לְמִיתָה בֵּין לִנְזָקִין; הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **This works out well according to** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **and you find in** a case of **damage** that both would be liable, as the Gemara will soon explain. Therefore, it qualifies as a case of a pit belonging to two partners. **But according to** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, the first partner is not held liable at all in a case **where** the pit causes an animal’s **death; and according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** the first partner is not held liable both in a situation **where it causes death and** in a situation where it merely causes **damage.** If so, **how, can you find** an instance of a pit belonging to partners?


###### Bava Kamma 51a:18
[Bava Kamma 51a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:18)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָקְרוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן חוּלְיָא בְּבַת אַחַת, וְהִשְׁלִימוּ לַעֲשָׂרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** This is referring to a case **where they both extracted a chunk** of earth from the bottom of the pit **simultaneously, and** thereby **completed** it **to** a depth of **ten** handbreadths. This, then, would constitute a pit belonging to both of them.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:19
[Bava Kamma 51a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:19)

מַאי רַבִּי וּמַאי רַבָּנַן? דְּתַנְיָא: אֶחָד הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר תִּשְׁעָה, וּבָא אַחֵר וְהִשְׁלִימָהּ לַעֲשָׂרָה – הָאַחֲרוֹן חַיָּיב. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אַחַר אַחֲרוֹן לְמִיתָה, וְאַחַר שְׁנֵיהֶם לִנְזָקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having mentioned the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis, the Gemara inquires: **What** is the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **and what** is the opinion of **the Rabbis? As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who digs a pit nine** handbreadths deep, **and another** person **came and completed** the digging **to** a depth of **ten** handbreadths, **the latter** individual alone is **liable** for an injury or death caused by the pit. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** One **follows the latter** for restitution **for death** caused by the pit. The latter is solely liable, since only a pit of ten handbreadths renders a person liable for an animal’s death. **And** one **follows both of them** for restitution **for damage** caused by the pit.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:20
[Bava Kamma 51a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:20)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי יִפְתַּח״ וְ״כִי יִכְרֶה״ – אִם עַל פְּתִיחָה חַיָּיב, עַל כְּרִיָּיה לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא כּוֹרֶה אַחַר כּוֹרֶה, שֶׁסִּילֵּק מַעֲשֵׂה רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of the Rabbis? As the verse states: “If** a man **shall open** a pit, **or if** a man **shall dig** a pit” (Exodus 21:33), it raises the question: **If** he is **liable for opening** a covered pit that has already been dug, then is it **not all the more so** that he should be liable **for digging** a new pit? What, then, does that latter phrase add? **Rather,** the verse serves **to include** the case of one person who begins to **dig** a pit and **after** he does so, a second person continues to **dig.** By subsequently stating: “If a man shall dig a pit,” the Torah teaches **that** a new pit is effectively created by the second digger, whose digging **removed,** i.e., rendered irrelevant, **the action of the first** digger and who bears full responsibility for the pit.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:21
[Bava Kamma 51a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:21)

וְרַבִּי אָמַר לָךְ: הָנְהוּ מִיצְרָךְ צְרִיכִי, כִּדְאָמְרִינַן. וְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי מִיצְרָךְ צְרִיכִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi could have **said to you: These** two clauses in the verse **are** both **necessary,** and the second clause cannot serve to teach the *halakha* of the sole liability of the second digger. The reason they are necessary is **as we said** earlier (50a), where interpretations were cited according to both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara asks: **And** don’t **the Rabbis also** agree that they **are necessary** for those interpretations? If so, what is the source of their opinion that responsibility for the pit rests solely with the second partner?


###### Bava Kamma 51a:22
[Bava Kamma 51a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:22)

אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן – אָמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי יִכְרֶה אִישׁ בּוֹר״ – אֶחָד וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the previous explanation must be rejected, and **this is the reason of the Rabbis:** The **verse states: “If a man shall dig a pit,”** indicating that **one** person is liable, **but not two.** Therefore, if two people jointly created the pit, the second bears responsibility and not the first.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:23
[Bava Kamma 51a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:23)

וְרַבִּי – הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: ״כִּי יִכְרֶה אִישׁ בּוֹר״ – וְלֹא שׁוֹר בּוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how does **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi understand the phrase “if a man shall dig a pit”? The Gemara answers: **He requires that** phrase to teach another *halakha*. The phrase **“if a man shall dig a pit”** indicates that a person who digs a pit is liable, **but** one is **not** liable if his **ox** digs a **pit.**


###### Bava Kamma 51a:24
[Bava Kamma 51a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:24)

וְרַבָּנַן – תְּרֵי ״אִישׁ בּוֹר״ כְּתִיבִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** from where do **the Rabbis** derive this *halakha*? The Gemara answers that the combination of words: **Man** and **pit,** is **written twice:** “If a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit.” From one phrase, the *halakha* is derived that a person must do the digging, and not an animal. From the second phrase, the *halakha* is derived that one person bears responsibility for the damage, and not two people.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:25
[Bava Kamma 51a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:25)

וְרַבִּי – אַיְּידֵי דִּכְתַב הַאי, כְּתַב הַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** what does **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi derive from this repetition? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, **since** the Torah **wrote this** first clause using this wording, it similarly **wrote this** second clause in the same fashion. The repetition is for stylistic reasons, and is not meant to teach a new *halakha*.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:26
[Bava Kamma 51a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:26)

וּמִמַּאי דִּלְחַיּוֹבֵי בָּתְרָא? דִּלְמָא לְחַיּוֹבֵי קַמָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to ask about the opinion of the Rabbis: **And** even if they derive from the verse that only one person is liable for damage caused through the pit, **from where** do they know **that** the Torah intends **to render** specifically **the latter one liable** for the damage? **Perhaps** it is **to render the first one** who started the digging **liable** for the damage.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:27
[Bava Kamma 51a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:27)

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ״ – הַהוּא דְּקָא עָבֵיד מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It should **not enter your mind** to suggest this, **since the verse states: “And the carcass shall be for him”** (Exodus 21:34). This indicates that it is **the one who causes the death,** i.e., the second one, who is liable, and not the first. This is because it is the second one who completed digging the necessary depth for causing death, and not the first.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:28
[Bava Kamma 51a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:28)

וְהַאי ״וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרָבָא – דְּאָמַר רָבָא: שׁוֹר פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין שֶׁנָּפַל לְבוֹר – פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ״ – בְּמִי שֶׁהַמֵּת שֶׁלּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** isn’t **this** clause: **“And the carcass shall be for him,” necessary for that which Rava** states? **As Rava says:** With regard to **a disqualified consecrated ox that fell into a pit,** the pit’s owner is **exempt, as it is stated: “And the carcass shall be for him.”** Evidently, the verse is stated **with regard to** a case **where the carcass belongs** to him. This ox, which was consecrated and subsequently disqualified, does not fully belong to anybody, since its use is restricted. Since this verse serves to teach Rava’s ruling, it cannot serve to teach about the liability of the second digger.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:29
[Bava Kamma 51a:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:29)

אָמְרִי: וְלָאו מִמֵּילָא שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ, דִּבְהָהוּא דַּעֲבַד מִיתָה עָסְקִינַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response: **And can’t you learn from** the words and emphasis of the verse **by itself that we are dealing with the one who caused** the animal’s **death,** even if these words are also used to derive Rava’s ruling? Therefore, the verse can serve as a source for both rulings.


###### Bava Kamma 51a:30
[Bava Kamma 51a:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/51a:30)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֶחָד הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר עֲשָׂרָה, וּבָא אַחֵר וְהִשְׁלִימָהּ לְעֶשְׂרִים, וּבָא אַחֵר וְהִשְׁלִימָהּ לִשְׁלשִׁים – כּוּלָּן חַיָּיבִין. וּרְמִינְהוּ: אֶחָד הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר עֲשָׂרָה, וּבָא אַחֵר וְסִיֵּיד וְכִיֵּיד – הָאַחֲרוֹן חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
On a similar subject, **the Sages taught:** In a case of **one who digs a pit** to a depth of **ten** handbreadths, **and another comes and completes** the depth **to twenty** handbreadths by digging an additional ten handbreadths, **and another comes and completes it to thirty,** they are **all liable** for any damage caused by this pit. The Gemara comments: **And** one can **raise a contradiction** against this from a *baraita*: In a case of **one who digs a pit** to a depth of **ten** handbreadths, **and another came and plastered** it **and cemented [*vekhiyyeid*]** it, **the latter** is **liable** for damage, and not the first.